Recommended Posts

A brand is much more than design elements/colors. Sports teams bring people together from in/around a given city. They create fun environments for fans and players who ultimately spend/generate money.

All of this is true, but it was all true when teams adhered to 2-4 colours shrug

It’s not like people only realized the Chicago Bulls were a cornerstone of Chicago once they rolled out their CM Punk unis. People figured it out long before then.

41 minutes ago, JESSEDIEBOLT said:

No one wants to wear the same colors every single day.

I agree. Which is why if I wear a royal blue Maple Leafs t-shirt? I just don’t wear Maple Leafs gear the next day. I don’t sit around going “gosh, I wish I had a gold and orange Maple Leafs shirt!”

People can, and do, wear things other than officially licenced merchandise from sports teams

42 minutes ago, JESSEDIEBOLT said:

Major brands like Nike

Well that’s the problem, isn’t it? Nike, in the context of NBA uniforms, shouldn’t be the dominant brand. The teams’ brands should come first. Nike, in this context, is just a manufacturer. They shouldn’t be outshining any single NBA brand.

43 minutes ago, JESSEDIEBOLT said:

The idea that a sports team has to strictly adhere to a set of 2-4 colors is outdated.

According to who? The Maple Leafs are still doing just fine from a branding perspective with just royal blue and white. The Canadiens’ simple red, white, and blue colour scheme is still iconic. As are the Yankees’ midnight navy pinstripes on white.

Heck, look at the NBA. The Celtics in grey or black will never replace the equity they have in simple green and white. And the Lakers? They’ll always be purple and gold first and foremost.

Share on other sites

My my point is, though, that these teams weren’t always what they are now. They cycled through early, whacky uniforms to find what worked, yes.

That was the point though. That when they found what worked they proceeded to build successful brands around it.

The “City” uniform thing is just a cycle of endlessly changing out one random alternate for another (if the yearly switch out claims are to be believed),

We’re not looking at less well-established teams trying to define their brand through experimentation. That would imply an end-goal. Which doesn’t exist here.

A team I look to as a modern example doing it right would be the New Jersey Devils. Up until the latest rebrand at least.

The team isn’t an Original Six franchise, but they approached their brand as if they were. The result was a modern classic of a uniform and logo that felt like it had as strong a brand as the Leafs, Habs, Red Wings, etc.

Which is what I’m getting at. The Jazz aren’t the Lakers, but their brand could be something special in its own right if they would just commit to it.

Going with a Tequila Sunrise look that doesn’t match anything else they have ever worn isn’t committing to the brand.

My my point is, though, that these teams weren’t always what they are now. They cycled through early, whacky uniforms to find what worked, yes.

That was the point though. That when they found what worked they proceeded to build successful brands around it.

The “City” uniform thing is just a cycle of endlessly changing out one random alternate for another (if the yearly switch out claims are to be believed),

We’re not looking at less well-established teams trying to define their brand through experimentation. That would imply an end-goal. Which doesn’t exist here.

I don’t think we know that for sure yet, as unlikely as it may seem. The Lakers, for example, set a smart precedent by saying no to LA symbols and landmarks and instead implied that the Lakers *are* LA as much as anything else, so they will honor LA by creating uniforms in the image of team legends.

I’m speculating (as you are) that it’s not Nike’s intent, but it remains to be seen whether any teams will use this as an experimental means to an end to “find their brand,” so to speak, or whether other teams will sort of “opt out” of the city program and do their own thing with it like LA has. Again, I definitely wouldn’t consider this likely, but I wouldn’t say the book is closed on it.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

All of this is true, but it was all true when teams adhered to 2-4 colours shrug

It’s not like people only realized the Chicago Bulls were a cornerstone of Chicago once they rolled out their CM Punk unis. People figured it out long before then.

I agree. Which is why if I wear a royal blue Maple Leafs t-shirt? I just don’t wear Maple Leafs gear the next day. I don’t sit around going “gosh, I wish I had a gold and orange Maple Leafs shirt!”

People can, and do, wear things other than officially licenced merchandise from sports teams

Well that’s the problem, isn’t it? Nike, in the context of NBA uniforms, shouldn’t be the dominant brand. The teams’ brands should come first. Nike, in this context, is just a manufacturer. They shouldn’t be outshining any single NBA brand.

According to who? The Maple Leafs are still doing just fine from a branding perspective with just royal blue and white. The Canadiens’ simple red, white, and blue colour scheme is still iconic. As are the Yankees’ midnight navy pinstripes on white.

Heck, look at the NBA. The Celtics in grey or black will never replace the equity they have in simple green and white. And the Lakers? They’ll always be purple and gold first and foremost.

So teams can, and often do, just fine with just 2-4 colours.

Not to mention the fashion jersey market, and the ability to sell things to fans that will never be worn.

If they want to sell a yellow and black raptors jersey, go right ahead.

Yellow tee shirt with the logo on it? go for it.

You can sell a lot of things, without sacrificing what you wear during the game.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Not to mention the fashion jersey market, and the ability to sell things to fans that will never be worn.

If they want to sell a yellow and black raptors jersey, go right ahead.

Yellow tee shirt with the logo on it? go for it.

You can sell a lot of things, without sacrificing what you wear during the game.

I'd guess that things that are worn during the game sell better than their fashion counterparts.

I don't have a problem with the City idea. Some are better than others, but that's inherent in a project like this.

I doubt the Lakers will always pay tribute to legends...they'll try to tie-in the actual location at some point; this year, Kobe was honored both in the rafters on the uniform...we won't see that every year.

And I don't really agree that teams have weakened or ruined their brands by wearing these City unis. Strong brands allow a little variation, especially one-year/minimal games stuff.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Lakers are wearing the MPLS in Minneapolis. Have they worn that jersey there before, as LA Lakers?

They wore them against the Wolves in Minneapolis in the early 2000s.

Edit: I spoke too soon, the Wolves wore white in this game on April 11, 2002 but after finding the date of the game I found video of the game and it shows the game being played in LA. The images on Google made it difficult to tell where it took place so I based it on the Wolves wearing their home whites

Much of the discussion on these boards since Nike's takeover has been "this team should look like this," "that team should bring those uniforms back," "they should [whatever]." I respect all of the opinions, and some certainly have their merits, but so many people seem to want teams to have two uniforms - that HAVE to be called "home" and "away" - and maybe an alternate, that are the exact same in perpetuity.

Teams change. Identities change. Brands change. Change for the sake of change isn't necessarily a good thing, and I won't defend all of Nike's designs, but from both business as well as design perspectives it makes no sense to remain stagnant. Teams like the Lakers and Celtics are obviously more untouchable than others, but even a team as iconic as the Bulls can benefit from something new and fresh like their City Edition uniforms. Mike was great, but that only lasted ~15 years, he's been gone for ~20 years, and they weren't ultra-relevant any time before or after that.

Link to post

Share on other sites

But how boring would these boards be if everyone was like the Yankees and Canadiens? What the hell would people with this interest talk about?

I mean this place wasn't exactly a ghost town when most teams rocked the standard "home-road-alternate" setup.

Right. In an ideal world in which most teams had consistent looks and exactly two uniforms, there would still be an infinitude of things to talk about regarding the details of each team's look. And that ideal world would still feature a handful of teams that flouted the norms by having some form of nontraditional design.

In 1972 the A's introduced their classic uniforms, becoming the only team in the Major Leagues having multiple uniform combinations (with the minor exception of the rarely-worn all-orange uniforms of the Orioles). At that time the A's were also one of the very few teams to wear a coloured jersey (the Padres wore yellow home and road, and the Braves wore blue on the road, in addition to the aformentioned orange Orioles jersey), and one of only two teams that used white pants on the road (along with the Braves).

The point is that it's this rarity, as much as the aspects of the uniform itself, that made this particular A's set special. In other words: the presence of strong aesthetic norms benefits everyone. This presence benefits the many teams that hew to these norms in order to define their looks, and -- here's the important bit -- it benefits even the outliers, the few teams which define their looks in contrast to these norms. But, when almost all teams are flouting various aesthetic norms to one degree or another, then these norms break down, the visual landscape become polluted, and the very idea of a team's identity becomes a lot weaker.

So the attitude of "GIVE ME MORE UNIFORMS" is terribly misguided. It is similar to eating only foods that contain excessive sugar or salt, or to listening to all music with the volume turned up to the max. The extreme sensory impact resulting from such practices can seem enjoyable; but in that sort of environment one rapidly experiences the loss of the ability to appreciate nuance. And it is in the nuance where the most interesting discussion topics are found. Here we have a powerful illustration of the principle "less is more".

In a sporting universe in which 80% of the teams looked like the Yankees or the Canadiens or the Raiders or the Celtics (whose variations have not really violated the bounds of their identity), and in which norm-busting innovation were practiced only by a small minority of teams, we'd have plenty to talk about. And we wouldn't have the terrible visual noise that devalues all design.

1

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I wish the Wizards/Nike had used the simplified "the district" wordmark seen on their dance team's uniforms (swipe to the second and third pic). It's a much cleaner design (obligatory rhinestones aside).

(Edit: here are the pics from Twitter; flipping through the IG pics can be a pain for some)

There are more enough explicit DC references in the design (the DC flag, the references to the Washington Monument in the word mark, logo, and side panel) to make it unambiguous that "the district" refers to the District of Columbia. It's certainly more obvious than "Buzz City," "ripcity," or "North."